So the candidates for an anchor that seem most promising are ritual, transcendent hierarchies and longing.

The question which for me is central to the thread is now why science does not count as a religion, given these anchors. — Banno

Scientism does.
What usually passes for/as science is actually scientism anyway.

Does it make sense to say one knows how things seem? Isn't it just that they seem? Any ratiocination is excessive. — Banno

Not if by "seem" one means 'pretend'.

Some people don't doubt their perceptual processes, but they doubt that other people and things are honest; they assume that they pretend, are treacherous, that they make themselves seem one thing, when they are actually something else.

So to "know what something seems" is to see through its pretense, its treachery.

Ok, so we have ritual, transcendent hierarchies and longing. — Banno

The notion of ritual is much criticized in some religions.

For example, in Buddhism, there is the cocept of silabbata-paramasa, usually translated as 'attachment to (grasping at) rites and rituals'. It is considered a fetter, an obstacle to spiritual advancement.

Rites don't purify the heart; skillful actions do: AN 10.176
Rituals alone can't take one beyond aging and death: Sn 5.3
Rites and protective charms should be avoided by lay followers: AN 5.175
The best protection comes not from rituals but from generous, moral, and wise actions: Khp 5
Water ablutions cannot wash away one's past bad kamma: Thig 12.1

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/index-subject.html#r

So either ritual cannot be part of what makes something a religion, or Buddhism isn't a religion.

Listening to the Smiths a lot ...

But don't let the real world hinder your argumentation. — ssu

And contempt wins the day once more.

You really think it's "distance" and not "skin colour" determining the wildly different reactions to war, or which presumably there's always one side in the wrong and at least somebody is a victim, in different continents? — boethius

Not skin color per se, but the specific assumption about the level of civilization of a certain people. The general trend of this assumption being that the darker the skin color of a people, the less civilized they are. And the less civilized someone is assumed to be, the more the people who deem themselves more civilized are justified to patronize or despise them.


Although for some people, it is about distance. Of all the posters here, it seems that I am still the one who is closest to the battlefield. If they use mass nuclear weapons, the radioactive particles will reach where I live.

To me, this is the reason not to indulge in passion and feelings of hatred and contempt toward Russia. To me, the relatively short distance has a sobering psychological effect.

innocent bystanders — Olivier5

Someone who hates and despises isn't an "innocent bystander".

We'd all like to see Russia and Ukraine and everywhere less corrupt and more democratic ... so, how? — boethius

It takes two parties for there to be corruption: One who wants to get ahead without doing the work or waiting his turn, and another who is willing to help him with that, in exchange for money or favors.
You can fire all the corrupt government officials, but as long as there are people who want to get ahead without doing the work or waiting their turn, there will be potential for corruption.

In short, corruption is possible when people don't value honest work and don't respect the order of things.
It then stands to reason that in order to minimize corruption, people need to value honest work and respect the order of things.

There is nothing we can really do about that except return to good faith dialogue and deescalate demonising both Putin and the Russians.

We cannot "win" with sticks and stones, and therefore can only "win" with words.

Which words exactly is the question.

That's not rocket science. Plain old common decency will do.

I don't see how debating just war from moral first principles would help arrive at a diplomatic resolution — boethius

It is my assumption that a diplomatic resolution cannot be arrived at as long as the matter of first principles hasn't been resolved.

First principles provide the bigger picture, the context for all practical interventions.

As things stand, we're trying to figure out what each party's first principles are, by making inferences from what they say about particular events and persons.

Because I am aware of the ignorance and bringing it to light? — schopenhauer1

You seem unsure of your purpose.

These are core to my philosophical viewpoints, so why wouldn't I discuss them at length with those willing to engage in dialogue? — schopenhauer1

But there is noone willing to engage in dialogue. Exactly like Ligotti says above. Seems ironic then to pursue the matter.

Anyway, I sometimes have the impression (but it could be just me) that you're still trying to find an alternative to existential pessimism. That perhaps you're looking for the folks who comply with the Agenda to convince you that it's worth it after all. I mean, I have my doubts about existential pessimism, and I couldn't profess it with the certainty you do.

I live in arguably one of the best establishments of this kind of system and it ranks us very high on indexes of life quality and freedom. — Christoffer

And other countries in other parts of the world have to pay the price for your life quality and freedom.

Like those poor South American countries that produce the lithium for your precious electric cars. Those countries are destroying their own land and their own people with dirty industry so that you can be "high on indexes of life quality and freedom".

I'll be impressed with Sweden once it's self-sufficient and once its happiness and wellbeing don't depend on the misery of others.

one that that never turns the spotlight of interrogation and rigorous judgement on themselves is at risk of attributing too great a benevolence to their own decisions. — Benj96

Why should this be a problem?

We have democracy.

The standards have been set by celebrity culture. — Hanover

The question is how come those standards caught on. There must be something in people that makes them think such standards are not only acceptable, but worth aspiring to.

Your question is what has been done to counterbalance it. — Hanover

Democracy makes such counterbalancing impossible.

When did spitting in somebody's mouth become a thing? It's started appearing in gay porn fairly recently? Saliva -- whether traded in kissing or spitting -- is the same, but how do people interpret the act? intimacy? Love? Contempt? What? — Bitter Crank

People have been used as toilets for a long time. It's perfectly normal. When a man ejaculates into a woman he's basically using her as a sex toilet. In order to relieve himself of urine and feces, he uses a toilet, and in order to relieve himself of semen, he uses a vagina. The mentality is the same. So why not spit into people.



Humans are the pinnacle of evolution, they are the best. They don't need to try harder.

Individuals act independently of society, to be sure, but show me what social mechanisms have been employed to address the issue. Show me the systems that have been collectively employed/directed that are meant to help provide standards. — Ennui Elucidator

We have democracy! We must be tolerant! We must respect those different than ourselves!!!

Besides, there is no society and everyone is reponsible solely for themselves!!!

On the contrary.
I think you vastly underestimate just how alien your -- and Schopenhauer's -- ideas are to most people.
— baker

No I’m aware on a daily basis. — schopenhauer1

Then why this thread?

Very little is needed to make a happy life; it is already within yourself, your way of thinking. — Marcus Aurelius

Yes! But not being bombed by Russians helps. — Banno

Nah. Today, it's Russian bombs, tomorrow it's tapeworms (talk about needing very little to make a happy life and said thing being already within yourself!).

There's always something. The problem is that one is living in a body that is subject to aging, illness, and death, and yet is fully relying on this body for happiness.

There is no reason that existence should exist. — chiknsld

How on Earth can you possibly know that??

How does one control how their actions impact the world when none of us have a definitive knowledge or right and wrong - a perfect moral compass by which to make decisions — Benj96

Pretty much everyone I know IRL considers themselves to be morally objective, flawless. They are dead sure they are right.

Perhaps you didn't see the answer — Tom Storm

But you didn't answer it.

Why should the average person "take on greater philosophical nuances and self-reflection"?
Why should the less educated folk "enlarge their perspectives"?

Will they be happier then?
Will they suffer less?
Will they completely stop suffering?
Will they be more caring then?
Will the world become a better place?
Will they be safer?
Will crime and wars stop?
Will they stop destroying the planet?
...?

If people want or should do something, then they must have a reason for doing so. I'm asking about this reason (or reasons). Merely being "interested" is trivial and doesn't inspire consistent and energetic action.

But the fact remains, people are interested in complex ideas but can't always understand or gain access to them.

Of course.

So your obsession with authority leads you to the superficial conclusion that religion is whatever someone authority says it is. — Banno

You make it sound like shit when you put it like that.

Religion appears to be a phenomenon that is defined by insiders, and can be done only by insiders (only insiders can do religion).
This is another thing religions appear to have in common.

As if the inconsistencies between such authorities could not be the subject of discussion.

How are you going to identify such authorities if you don't even have a definition of "religion" to begin with?

I don't see that yours is a significant contribution to the discussion. Prove me wrong, address the article mentioned in the OP, with something non-trivial.

I'm trying to counteract your dominance and your externalizing, etic approach.

Religion is about doing. — Hanover

Yes, this is the one thing all religions probably agree on.

What is your scope of interest? — Fooloso4

Like I said:

My theme here is how to regard one's moral judgments as relevant. — baker

Denying those who do not hold to an absolute moral authority a decision making voice?

No, saying that those who doubt and relativize themselves shouldn't expect to be taken seriously by others.

How so we determine what is the authentic voice of authority?
What authority do those who are to decide have?[

Like I said:

The whole point of authority is that one's subjugation to it is not a matter of one's choice. Authority imposes itself, and it does so totally. Anything that is less than that is not authority, just someone or something with currently more power than oneself. — baker

As I succintly (perhaps too succintly) made clear in my first post in this thread, it's about contexts and who rules over them.

If you try to define religion as someone who is not religious, from the outside, then your notions of religion will be all over the place, not making a coherent whole.

A, for example, Hindu's idea of religion and a Roman Catholic's idea of religion differ, even significantly, but what they have in common is that their own notion of religion is meaningful to them, respectively.

You, however, seem to be starting from the position that there is or should be a suprareligious, religiously neutral concept of religion. Arguably, such a concept of religion is the product of Western secular religiology.

The idea is that thinking about things properly makes an end to aimless, useless thinking.

*sigh*
It wasn't sarcasm, it wasn't a jibe, it was an honest question. Which you evaded, as if this were a watercooler conversation.
I want you to make an effort.

We cannot make explicit a satisfactory account of the concept of religion? — Banno

Yet religious people do it every day.

So it amounts to acknowledging that no, I can't really demonstrate it 'objectively' even if I have the conviction that it's true. — Wayfarer

The issue at hand isn't something that could be "demonstrated objectively" to begin with. It's something that requires effort both on the part of the speaker and the listener. You know that.

This usually then leads to the conclusion that it's only a matter of 'faith', of 'believing without evidence' - because the 'testimony of sages' and the annals of spiritual philosophy are all simply a matter of faith, not scientifically demonstrable. Thereby falling right back into the false dichotomy which characterises modern philosophy, that there is what is scientifically demonstrable and objectively verifiable, and anything else, no matter whether it's noble or profound, must always be a matter of personal conviction.

The problem is that you're trying to carry out the discussion on the terms set by your opponents. Which, of course, doesn't work out well.

All I'm saying, is I don't claim to be enlightened. Had enough of your sarcasm and constant jibes, baker. — Wayfarer

I want you to up your game. Put some cattle under that hat, a horse under that saddle.

But just like cups neither have essences, which was my point. — Hanover

How can you know a cup doesn't have an essence?

Which is what? To help your fellow man and woman, love and educate your kids, be a force of happiness to all? Why? Seems meaningless to simply make someone's stay as comfortable as possible if you admit there was no reason for them to come and stay in the first place.

It's like being Sisyphus' water boy, tending kindly to him, convincing yourself your altruism and goodness matters, ignoring the fact that you're all involved in a meaningless struggle that will eventually end with your death and then eventually the destruction of the world. — Hanover

"You're just saying that because you're depressed and cynical, and you haven't learned to 'live in the present moment and enjoy it'!!!"

The (upper) middle class idea that we're being sold by some seculars is that secular life _is_ good enough, _is_ worth living, _is_ satisfactory, and that there _is_ something wrong with the person who doesn't see it that way and that they just need to try harder.

I don't really have a response to this secular stance.

There is no god. We make our own purpose. — Banno

Nah, self-help literature does it for us.

Killing in war situations is not defined as murder. — Janus

War is "nothing personal", eh?

If in a discussion between A and B, A insists on the central significance of X while B insists that X be entirely excluded from the discussion as "not even a possibility" - there is literally nothing left for A and B to talk about.

To my view, Wayfarer was relating this simple fact. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Sure. But he also said something else, which was what I addressed. If one says things that disqualify one, then one shouldn't be surprised of the negative response.

You've not familiar with hermeneutics? — Janus

I'm just not familiar with magic.

If you have 100 people, 50 think that there is an absolute moral authority and 50 do not. If you poll them on their views of moral issues you will not be able to identify who was in one group rather than they other. — Fooloso4

Sure, but that isn't my scope of interest anyway.

And rape is not as universally condmned as we might hope, and certainly not as much in antiquity as today.
What causes the lack of confidence in the evil of rape among those who shrug it off? Just that they're evil (i.e. "morally bankrupt") and be obviously circular? — Hanover

They don't simply shrug it off; they shrug it off _selectively_.
For example, about a 150 years ago in the US, many whites believed it was not wrong for white men to rape a black woman; but they would hang a black man who was suspected of raping a white woman.

I once heard that the Ten Commandments are actually a short form, and were not intended to be taken generally, universally, without further qualification.

So, for example, "Thou shalt not kill" wasn't actually a general prohibition of killing, but was intended to mean "Thou shalt not kill any members of your own tribe, unless specified otherwise (e.g. if they committed adultery, etc.)", and outsiders were not included in this prohibition (ie. it was not prohibited to kill outsiders).
Such a reading explains the apparent contradictions in what adherents of the Ten Commandments profess to believe and what they do.

My point here is to either ask you accept that rape (or slavery or genocide) (1) has been moral at one point and now it's not or (2) was never moral but was mistaken as moral.

Pick your poison. I choose 2.

Your assumption is that the action is all that matters, regardless by whom it is done, to whom, and under what circumstances. It is on this point that many people disagree.

It's why the US goes to war, for example: They go kill the terrorists, so that social order can be established.

Or take on smaller scale example: That husband who shot and killed his wife, claiming he did it because she wouldn't stop nagging him. The nagging was the disruption of the social order, killing her was his (final) act of (re)establishing social order.

The expectation of an incontrovertible moral principle is naive, even childish. — Banno

No, it is goal-oriented, purpose driven: In order to attain goal X, you must behave in such and such ways.

If your goal is to never cause a traffic accident due to drunk driving, you must never drink and drive.
This is incontrovertible.

Cannibalism is not murder, but killing for food. Infanticide in animals is an instinctive, well-regulated behavior, not a random act of passion.When these acts occur in animals they are part of the social order, not disruptive of it. — Janus

What makes you think the same doesn't apply to humans?

People generally kill people for the sake of (re)establishing social order (whatever they understand by that in any given case).

Belief in a morality that transcends time and place requires belief in some kind of "afterlife" (such as in the sense of the Christian afterlife, the Hindu reincarnation, or Buddhist rebirth).

Without God's judgment or karma, the notion of justice doesn't apply, and without justice, morality is unintelligible.
— baker

This is idiosyncratic to certain religions, but not logically dictated. — Hanover

It's dictated by our need for our moral behavior to be relevant, meaningful, worthwhile. And to be such in various life circumstances.

When things are going well for you in your life, it might seem to go without saying that it is morally wrong to steal and you won't steal. But what about when you fall on hard times, or when an opportunity for an easy theft presents itself: What will then be your motivation to stick to your moral principle of not stealing, even though sticking to that principle can sometimes be inconvenient, hard, or even life-threatening?

Judaic views vary, although the afterlife is not posited for the purposes of meting out eternal rewards and punishments. It is used to purge one of sin in order to return the person to his holy state. It is a time of atonement, not punishment, and not to exceed 12 months (cool, right?).

But this applies only to Jews, not to everyone, correct?

The point being that doing good can be for that sake of doing good alone, despite how other models might handle sin.

Since there are usually good times and bad times in a person's life, the matter is a bit more challenging.